KenGreen’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Dave -

  I have to say, I think you're losing your perspective on the Van Jones issue, and perhaps on the entire climate policy debate. You've let yourself become a sort of anti-Beck, launching tirades that are just as distortionary as his, only in the opposite direction. I don't watch Beck (Or other Fox shows), nor do I listen to Rush, but I think that the crude way you characterize the people who DO listen to them reveals a profound elitism and arrogance that I think is shredding your credibility.

  Is it REALLY inconceivable to you that people might object to the proliferation of czars through the political system out of reasonable concerns for our government's system of checks and balances? Do you really think that if a conservative "czar" had done the kind of things that Van Jones did, he/she'd be allowed to remain in the administration? Have you completely lost the ability to show any intellectual respect for those who disagree with you on either the interpretation of climate data and studies, much less public policy and the economic consequences of those policies?

  If you have reached this level of cynicism, Dave, then you need to take some time off and meditate on the value, and virtues of civil discourse, and giving your opponents the benefit of the doubt regarding their sincerity. The Democrat response to the rising tide against the Obama administrations "big government everywhere!" approach has been equally elitist, arrogant, and condescending. They're simply not capable of acknowledging that anyone could ever have legitimate reasons to disagree with them on anything, and the way they (and you) characterize these people (teabaggers, mobs, rabble, etc.) is absolutely shameful. Ultimately, that attitude will lose them the support of the many independents and moderates who did NOT vote for a hard-left government, but who voted for "anything other than Bush."

  Read your recent posts, and ask yourself this question: compared to your reporting of a year ago, aren't you sounding more and more like Joe Romm (and like the right-wing people you characterize as unhinged), than you are like a serious reporter? Time to step back, take a deep breath, and try to regain a sense of perspective.

   

  On Thoughts on Van Jones' resignation posted 2 months, 2 weeks ago 37 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Matthew -

  If that distinction were really true, I might agree, but in reality, both types of groups get much of their support from some very wealthy individual donors, and from donor foundations of the left or right. Companies donate to organizations on both sides of the spectrum to hedge their bets. And then, I fail to see how it's not "grass roots" if a company tells its employees that it's going to lose business and have to trim jobs if a particular piece of legislation goes through. The employees, after all, are individual concerned citizens, are they not?

  On Astroturf wars continue as more info comes to light on 'Energy Citizen' rallies posted 3 months ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Kate -

  I'd have to say that "astroturf" is in the eye of the beholder. Is MoveOn.org astroturf? When Grist encourages readers to write to congress, is that "grass roots?" Is President Obama using the Unions to get out their supporters "grass roots" or "astroturf?" What about when he uses the giant email list of people he built up while campaigning - if those people go to events, are they genuinely grass roots, or are they just astroturf?

  You have to be fair about this, either you assume that both sides are turfing, or you assume that neither side is, but to selectively label community organizing efforts as "astroturf" is somewhat hypocritical.

   

  Ken Green

  On Astroturf wars continue as more info comes to light on 'Energy Citizen' rallies posted 3 months ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Dave -

  I dare say that for every over-estimate of the cost of carbon reduction you can find from some industry group, I can find you one from a governmental agency or environmental advocacy group that is so ridiculously low-balled that it will incite outright laughter from any serious economist.

  California's recent experience with their cost estimates of AB32 is illustrative: agency analyses showed extremely low costs, and extremely high benefits for California's aggressive GHG reduction plan. But a panel of respected economists appointed (by the state itself!) to review the cost/benefit analysis condemned it - not a few reviewers, but ALL of them. 

  Corporations have an incentive to overstate the costs of compliance, and underestimate benefits. Environmental groups and government agencies have incentives to understate the costs of compliance, and overstate benefits.

  You prefer EDF's analysis, but they're hardly a neutral observer, nor are you: you're both single-mission environmental advocacy groups, not independent legislative analysts office. I think it's fair to say that any cost estimate that EDF would put out would represent the absolutely lowest cost estimate it's possible to make, using assumptions that are almost certainly so blue-sky as to make a serious economist laugh out loud on reading through them.

  As for other things causing more economic harm, such as the financial crisis, you're right, they're probably bigger than the cost of carbon reduction. However, two, or three, or 10 wrongs don't make  a right. What you're saying now is "Heck, there's already so much wreckage, how can a little more hurt!" Not exactly critical thinking.

  On Myth: Pricing carbon will destroy the economy posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Dave -

  You've created a straw man here. Other than a very few fringe anarcho-capitalists, advocates of "free markets" accept that courts have legitimate roles in protecting contracts, and preventing monopolies.

  When virtually anyone on the right says "free market" they mean "a market where free trade is allowed within the law, which should preferably regulate lightly and uniformly."

  The problem we have in the energy sphere is that the markets are neither lightly regulated nor uniformly regulated, and in some cases, the "within the law" part becomes dubious as well.

  Again, the answer is not to pour on additional layers of bad regulation, it's to reform energy regulation so there IS a relatively undistorted market in which price signals can work, with enough regulation to keep the players honest.

  On Myth: There is a "free market" in energy posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 4 Responses